'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

Pray tell what point is the above link supposed to prove exactly?

 

The law of the state of Illinois holds that deadly force may be used to prevent the theft of private property, such as a motor vehicle from the legal owner who is present at the time.

 

A convicted felon in illegal possession of a firearm, after being released from prison early. The incident does not count.

 

I asked for factual data that avg citizens are trained better than police. Those links are all very high level estimates. Not to mention we don’t know each situation. Were there more people around when cops discharged their weapon than when a civilian discharged theirs? Point being is there are way too many factors to account for to come to any real conclusion.

 

Thanks on the gang related story.

I know the saying stats don't lie, but liars do stats.
Interesting on LEO and armed citizens. I was under the impression most LEOs were not for armed citizens.

But I still doubt the majority of gun owners are more trained than LEOs.
There's no real gun training law requirements in many states. Just fill out paperwork, wait the waiting period and it's yours.

 

A guy being judge, jury, and executioner.

 

That's wonderful but we are talking about lives here not some property. It's already clear the Lt. was within his rights. We are talking about the morality of taking someone's life over property.

 

In NY you are allowed to use deadly force to stop a robbery in your home or your car.

 

We are not talking about a theif simply taking your property, we are talking about somone that decides to kill somone else, in order to leave no witnesses to their crime.
Long criminal records.
Long prison time if caught.

 

Then take up the matter with the legislature of the state of Illinois that has decided private property is of greater importance than the lives of those that would attempt to acquire it through illegal means.

 

It can be shown that law enforcement officers in the state of California routinely lose their duty firearms, and are not punished for such. Some are lost due to their own negligence and incompetence, others due to the actions of criminals. Other law enforcement officers have even been caught trafficking firearms for the sake of profit.

http://extras.mercurynews.com/policeguns/

Nine-hundred and forty-four guns. From Glocks, Sig Sauers and Remingtons to sniper and assault rifles, some equipped with grenade launchers. They used to belong to law enforcement officers across California, but a new Bay Area News Group investigation found hundreds of police-issued weapons have been either stolen, lost or can’t be accounted for since 2010, often disappearing onto the streets without a trace.

A year after a bullet from a federal agent’s stolen gun killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier, this news organization surveyed more than 240 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and discovered an alarming disregard for the way many officers — from police chiefs to cadets to FBI agents — safeguard their weapons.


Their guns have been stolen from behind car seats and glove boxes, swiped from gym bags, dresser drawers and under beds. They have been left on tailgates, car roofs and even atop a toilet paper dispenser in a car dealership’s bathroom. One officer forgot a high-powered assault rifle in the trunk of a taxi.


The tally includes Colts, Rugers, Smith & Wessons, a Derringer, a .44-caliber Dirty Harry hand cannon and a small snub-nosed revolver called a “Detective Special.”


In all, since 2010, at least 944 guns have disappeared from police in the Bay Area and state and federal agents across California — an average of one almost every other day — and fewer than 20 percent have been recovered.


Little attention had been paid to the issue before Steinle’s highly publicized death. But at least 86 weapons were snatched from officers’ vehicles between January 2010 and last June’s smash-and-grab burglary of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger’s gun recovered after Steinle’s shooting. Police have not determined who stole it, but an illegal immigrant is charged in her killing.


“You just can’t leave a gun alone in a vehicle,” said retired FBI Agent Jim Wedick. “You just can’t do it. It has to be in a compartment, or in chains an inch thick wrapped around a lead box, because, God forbid, someone gets hurt.”


Even after Steinle’s death, law enforcement agents have continued to leave guns available in their cars: Four FBI guns have been stolen from vehicles in the Bay Area this year, including three in Benicia; Salinas police had three stolen from cars in a six-week period in April and May. And a San Jose Police cadet resigned on the eve of becoming an officer after his gun was stolen from his car in late October while he was in the Benihana restaurant at Cupertino’s Vallco Shopping Mall.

 

You may be talking about that but I'm not. Mine was a very pointed question.

 

And baiting a reply to an irrelevancy, my reply vaporized your question in a puff of logic.

 

What if that stolen property is used to kill someone? Are we to assume the carjacker will obey all traffic laws? This person just threatened your life and could very likely be about to do the same thing to someone else.

I have no sympathy for thieves. They get what they deserve if they are shot.

 

You're welcome!

That is a true statement!

This does tend to be a big surprise for a lot of people; but law enforcement officers genuinely want to see people be safer, and able to protect themselves and their families. No one knows the truth of the old adage of "when seconds count the police are only minutes away!" more than cops do. There's also been more than one cop who has had his life saved by a private citizen with a weapon jumping into a situation to help.

Gun owners in general, probably not. CCW holders, almost definitely. There are exceptions, of course; but people who carry are for the most part people who actually like practicing and training with their carry pistols, which makes them far more effective gun handlers than the average cop, who tends to think of their sidearm more as a badge of office than something they need to put time and energy into practicing with. I remember an agent I worked with who had scored very high at the academy with his firearms training... and never practiced again, and couldn't understand why his qualifying scores were worse and worse as time went on because he was "so well trained". I had to explain about how shooting was a perishable skill to motivate him to start practicing again.

Well, like it or not, gun ownership is a Constitutional right, so there can't be legal requirements people have state-delivered training before they can exercise that right. Then again, every right requires responsible exercise, and responsible gun owners should always pursue all the training they can get. But, a lot of gun owners are very well trained without ever taking an official training class. As I've noted elsewhere, I grew up around guns and got a LOT of training from my grandfather; to the extent that when I went into law enforcement I was a more proficient gun handler than even my instructors were.

 

If the individual in question was attempting to steal a firearm from its legal owner, would it not be right to kill them for such?

 

Constitutional rights can have limits.
Citizens can't arm themselves with the same arms our military branches do.

 

Only when the exercise of those rights can cause harm to others as a direct result of said exercise. Causing a panic through free speech has the ability to result in others being injured or killed in the pandemonium. Simple ownership of a firearm without underground licensing, registration, or training requirements however, poses no such risk to anyone.

Technically they can, just not with newly-produced models of arms due to an act of pure and petty spite and vindictiveness on the part of politicians who held office in the eighth decade of the twentieth century, who experienced a social shift in the public that rejected their proposals outright. It is a restriction that is devoid of legitimacy, because the cutoff date is purely arbitrary and capricious.

 

Current arms used by our military that are legal to own by citizens:

M16
M-60 machine gun
M249 SAW
M1911A1 pistol
M9 Pistol
M11 pistol
M17 pistol
M18 pistol
M500 shotgun
M590 shotgun
M26 modular shotgun
M14 enhanced battle rifle
M4 carbine
M110 sniper rifle
M2010 sniper rifle
M107 sniper rifle
M2HB machine gun

 

After an investigation. My bet is they are placed on desk duty, until the case has been internally investigated.
AFAIK, no investigation has taken place with this civilian. Or it was merely glossed over.

 

Pretty small list, compared to what our military actually has.

 

That's pretty much every small arm issued to the Army these days.

 

So, civilians are constitutionally restricted to small arms only? That is a restriction, yes?

 

Not unless those limits are clearly outlined in the Constitution, or via proper Amendment to the Constitution.

Which violates the clearly stated intent of the Constitution. The Founders believed the average citizen should be able to be equipped with equivalent small arms to the average soldier.

 

To be honest, clearly "arms" means "arms", and we should have had an honest conversation about this way back in the beginning of the 20th Century.

I believe there should be differentiation between "arms" and "ordnance".